Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 4

Mass deletion of substubs

Referring to the 60 or so stub articles on former members of parliament created by User:Borgarde deleted by User:Rebecca, see [1], deletions on November 22.

Each of these articles contained:

• A single sentence, e.g. "Geoffrey Giles was a Liberal representative for the South Australian Division of Wakefield from 1977 to 1983 in the Australian House of Representatives."
• A succession box for Members for that electorate
• Categories for party affiliation and electorate

Rebecca's justification for deleting them, given at User talk:Borgarde is:

"What I have a problem with is editors creating substubs that are worse than nothing in order to drive up their edit count. Amongst the tens of articles that Borgarde mass-created last night, there were articles at the wrong titles, and quite a number of articles that didn't mention things that the person was more notable for outside of a stint in federal politics. This happens when is so obsessed with driving up their edit count that they can't even do a basic Google search before creating an article on someone they've never heard of. Thus, as these substubs had no content apart from presenting what was already there in a less useful way, they have been deleted."

Now, I am under the impression that Federal MPs are considered notable by definition and am inclined to undelete all these articles, but thought I should see if Aus Politics project members had any thoughts first? --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally have deleted them but I agree that they offered very little that the reader wouldn't already have known in searching for the page. It would be more useful to create genuine stub articles one by one rather than mass-creating single line pieces. Perhaps the 60 names could be created as a "To do" list and we can collectively go through and create genuine articles on each? Euryalus (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a master to-do list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians. —Moondyne 05:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they articles should at least exist as stubs. I created all the uncreated Federal MPs from South Australia and Tasmania ones first because they were the ones I had a genuine interest in. I recently improved Ralph Jacobi to an 'acceptable' stub level as per User:Rebecca. I see no problem with substubs, once an article is created for a person it appears higher in a google search, and anonymous editors can all of a sudden edit a page and add information that someone else has not. People can still work through a to-do list with the pages already created.--Borgarde^talk 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rebecca. Why create an article that gives only a name and the electorate they represented when a five minute search on a well known search engine can create a decent stub article? --Roisterer (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because then the article at least exists in a stub form. They were also some politicians that were hard enough to find sources for, like Elizabeth Harvey from Hawker. But if the article was created, visitors can expand it. --Borgarde^talk 06:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[replying to no-one in particular] Isn't the purpose of {{australia-politician-stub}} and Category:Australian politician stubs to give us an index of stubs to be expanded? As each stub-tagged page says: "This article about an Australian politician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." —Moondyne 06:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Rebecca. These articles have no usefulness, and their appearance as blue links is less incentive to at least create a genuine stub. It doesn't take that much time to create a decent stub (or start) for these and I see no reason why sub-stubs should be substituted. Frickeg (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am late to this discussion, but I also agree with Rebecca. Wikipedia is not written for editors but for readers. A blue link is a promise to a Wikipedia user that a useful article can be found. Having a reader click through to find a sub-stub is wasting their time and breaking that promise. If an article with at least some context can't be created, it is better to wait until a reasonable stub can be created. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK.. how about I take a look through them and undelete the ones that contain content other than "X was the Y representative for the Division of Z from 19aa to 19bb", such as the aforementioned Elizabeth Harvey which contained a source that Borgarde had hunted up? --Stormie (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Lindsay Affair

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in the above article. It will need careful watching to avoid WP:BLP issues and maintain a neutral point of view. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ParlInfo former senators and members biographies

If anyone is interested, ParlInfo has here (select Parliamentary Handbook -> Biographies -> Former Senators and Members) a bunch of biographies of former Federal senators and members. I have created User:Stormie/Former MPs with Biogs matching them up with Wikipedia articles - a bunch of red links in there that those biogs could be used as sources for, also probably a number of existing articles that could be expanded. --Stormie (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Liberty and Democracy Party

This article was very shoddily moved from Liberal Democratic Party (Australia) (a copy and paste job); I have suggested that it be moved from its current name (which includes an ampersand) at Wikipedia:Requested moves but would like to bring to an admin's attention the fact that its edit history is quite mangled. The talk page even has a note saying to see the old talk page for old discussions! Frickeg (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would need RM's involvement, there's around 6 or 7 admins reading here and it isn't a terribly controversial situation. I would do it but I'm on a net cafe in Canberra. Orderinchaos 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 election result, & joining group

Hi, I would like to join the group, is it just a matter of sticking my name on the list? also, I have started adding the results of the election on the pages of MPs, using the following template:

In the 2007 Federal election, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX was re-elected to the seat of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX with a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX% swing toward the Labor Party.

If people want to use/criticise that, sounds good. rakkar (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks alright to me, but I really would wait until the election results have been declared (postal votes, etc., are still being counted) before adding these. Frickeg 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Article request

Hi, I don't know where to put this, but is it possible for some one to create an article on Henry Tsang, a notable Chinese-Australian ALP politician [2].--60.242.159.224 (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! As a serving member of the NSW parliament Henry Tsang is definitely on the list of people we want articles on. I'll have a go at it when I have a little free time if someone else doesn't do it first. Thanks for providing that reference, here's another: [3] --Stormie (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Informal votes

What is it about New South Wales? According to [4] (from here), the top 16 divisions with the highest informal percentage are all from NSW. What the? —Moondyne 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall...
NSW	4.85
NT	3.79
SA	3.76
QLD	3.58
WA	3.57
VIC	3.11
TAS	3.01
ACT	2.45
Total	3.86

—Moondyne 08:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty scary. I live in one of the top 10. The percentages of informal votes dwarf the swings from one party to another from election to election. I'd love to know how many informal votes were "deliberately" informal and how many were incorrectly filled-in ballots, but I don't suppose that would ever be counted.

Out of curiosity, I grabbed the Two-Party Preferred numbers from [5] and combined them with the informal numbers for some Original Research: there are 25 seats in which the number of informal votes was greater than the difference between the ALP and the Coalition's two-party preferred vote. --Stormie (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrutineers will look at informals and usually get a good idea of whether they are deliberate or incorrect informals; Cheryl Kernot's election in Dickson was partly down to a scrutineer looking closely at informals and realising that a particular type of informals could actually be counted. --Roisterer (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to mention possible confusion with the optional preferential voting rules applied in state elections, but you would expect that to effect Queensland as well as New South Wales. When it comes to the Senate, it is Victoria that stands out, for some reason. JPD (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The informal vote in Blaxland and the State seat of Bankstown has occasionally outpolled the Coalition, mostly a result of the extraordinary concentration of non-English speakers in the electorate. From memory it was 23% on the 1991 State election, exacerbated by the Greiner Government's sudden introduction of compulsory preferential voting. There's obviously a proportion of deliberate errors such as all the "free Alfie Langer" ballots in 1996, but I'd argue the bulk of NSW informals compared to other States are errors due to language difficulties and confusion over the different State and federal systems. I'd say from personal observation in scrutineering ballots that around 1 in 20 informals are deliberate. Euryalus (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

At the booth I scrutineered at most informals were either completely blank (about half), had a 1 or x in one box only (about another quarter), with sloganeering, artwork, jokes and non-standard numbering making up the rest. That was a NSW booth with an informal rate of 5% in a fairly non-ethnically-mixed area. Back in WA another friend scrutineered at a booth in a northern suburb which swung to the Liberals where the informal rate was 10% and *most* were abusive (said scrutineer was quite shocked at the intensity of some of them) with only a few clearly mistakes. Orderinchaos 08:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we please delete the Scope section?

This doesn't ever get updated so it should be removed. Timeshift 11:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: One Australia policy

Way back in 1988, John Howard released an immigration and ethnic affairs policy document which he titled "One Australia", which called for a reduction in Asian immigration. The policy was controversial in its time, possibly resulting in Howard losing the Liberal leadership in 1989.. The article is here-> One Australia policy. The article is currently listed for deletion. I put out this message to get a wider group of people commenting on whether or not the article should be deleted, and ask you to comment on the AfD page here.

The article previously was longer (covering other matters) and had a less savoury title, which has now been changed. If you commented before, please comment again (because of those changes). Please be civil. Thank you, Lester 12:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Minister for Education, Science and Training (Australia)

It would be good if an administrator could move this to Minister for Education (Australia) (one of Julia's new titles), which is currently prevented by a redirect.--Grahamec 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the redirect for speedy deletion as uncontroversial housekeeping. Hopefully this raises enough of a flag. Euryalus 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is 'Religion' being placed in every politician's infobox?

Fraser, Howard, Keating, Menzies... the list goes on and on.
Every infobox of every politician is being changed to include the religion. It seems unnecessary to me, as many of these politicians are not practicing the faith, so what they were born into has no relevance in the infobox. Look at Keating, he was not a practicing Catholic, and his Prime Ministership had no policies related to Catholicism.Lester 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove. Timeshift 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, although the pedant in me notes that when Keating was asked why he was a Republican he claimed it was due to his Catholicism. --Roisterer 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole article to mention that in ;-) Timeshift 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I support removal of this information from the info boxes. It is not something we focus on as defining our politicians - if relevant mention in the article. Infoboxes are too lengthy anyway and should focus on important defining details. May be relevant for some countries and therefore inclusion as a parameter is justified, but exisiting as a parameter doesn't mean it should be filled in. --Matilda ^talk 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(Agreeing with Matilda and Timeshift etc) Should be in article text if it's important, which isn't often. Infoboxes are for key summary information. Orderinchaos 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About a day or so ago, some enterprising fellow added religion to every single Prime Minister of Australia. I now have all 26 watchlisted. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They weren't "added" - they were put back as they were there in the first place. This is to ensure consistency with leaders around the world, and Australia is odd at the moment at not including these things - there has often been a push to remove anything religious by the atheist Wiki editors who want to secularise the encyclopedia. I agree that it should only be there if relevant where the leader has made their religious beliefs a prominent part of their life - something like Hawke's atheism or Rudd's Christianity is important, I would argue - but someone like Keating who didn't make much of it, it's not relevant. JRG (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of HoS in PM infoboxes

Crazy edit wars: I can't believe someone went through 25+ articles, putting the monarchy in the infobox. Then, someone else must go through those articles and remove them again, like plucking burrs from a sock. It would have been better to discuss here whether such a style change is required, before doing it to so many articles. Lester 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a call for the inclusion of the relevant Head of State to be included into the infoboxes for Australian PMs, per that followed by UK and Canadian (to use two examples of several offered). Following Lester's suggestion in the talk of Kevin Rudd it is better to discuss here rather than over there, especially given that it will potentially impact 26 articles. Personally I believe we should have a consistency of style, following on from the many and various MOS' and hence (following that in other commonwealth countries) the HoS should be included. Look forward to comment by this Wikiproject. Shot info (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested then that instead of Monarch, we put the Governor-General instead, being that he is more applicable to Australia in particular. I know the other Commonwealth realms PM's articles have the head of state in the infobox - indeed, so do all republic PM articles - however, Elizabeth II herself does not apply in particular. She and her family did not appoint Kevin Rudd or all of the others, the respective Governor-Generals did, albeit with her "power". If we're gonna have the head of state in the infobox, it might as well be the Australian head of state representative. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO Head of State & Governor General should be removed from those infoboxes, indeed all PM infoboxes on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Governor General is not a head of state, and should not be included. We're getting a lot of extraneous information put in those infoboxes: Queens, GGs, Flags, etc. It is an infobox about the person the article is about, so it should be limited to information about that person. If people want to read about the Queen or her representatives, there are other places they can go. This other information is included in the Australia wikipedia article. Lets not put it in every political article. Considering that both the monarchy and the flag are controversial in Australia, it could be considered POV to place them in a myriad of other articles that are not directly related. Lets leave the PM's infobox to the PM's info. Lester 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, perhaps having the 'Governor General' listed is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

During the week, I called for (again) consistancy among the infoboxes (at Kevin Rudd). I've now withdrawn my request (again), as the consensus there backs inconsistancy. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You call it inconsistency, we call it variation by consensus. Timeshift (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Category for deletion debate

• Wikiproject members may be interested in the following discussion: Category:Electoral divisions always held by the Australian Labor Party - Discussion--Matilda ^talk 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilfrid Kent Hughes: Towards GA status

Hey people. Inspired by the Triple Crown, I am working towards my first GA article, Wilfrid Kent Hughes. Not having produced a GA article, it would be great if people could have a look at it and provide some feedback. I realise that there are some references I still need to dig up. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha. We should start a writing comp for WP:AUS! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I really have to get myself into gear and do the Colin Jamieson article. Orderinchaos 06:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember trying to make at least the ADB references compliant with WP:MOS and link them to the online articles, but they have been reverted.--Grahame (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Kingston moved

I see that someone has made Charles Kingston a disambiguation page and moved Kingston to Charles Kingston (politician) but didn't move any of the links. I would argue that Kingston is the most famous of the namesakes and should be at Charles Kingston, leaving the others to be noted at a disambiguation page. Id this a realistic suggestion in this situation? --Roisterer (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The politician Kingston was a Premier, Minister in the first Federal parliament and introduced the first laws for female suffrage. The most notable of the others is Charles W. Kingston who founded a breakaway sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints and whose name is still occasionally invoked in US polygamy debates. Both are notable but I would argue that the first has made a greater and more enduring contribution to the historical record than the second. Also, the name recognition and national impact for Premier Kingston is significantly greater within his country than that of Kingston (religious leader) in his. Other views welcome, as always. Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it has now been moved back, but the talk page seems to have been lost in the process (and may have only included project ratings).--Grahame (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 15, 2007

Reversion of vandals appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How to fix Importance table on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics?

The table says we have one FA of top importance. Per Category:FA-Class Australian politics articles, none are. How can I edit this table? Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition is a featured list and top importance - that's where the confusion lies. The table can't be edited, as it's bot updated. Orderinchaos 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the talk page, it's rated high not top. And yes i'm aware of why it says that. But i'm sure many other casual visitors arent, and requires some sort of rectification. Timeshift (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's high for Australia, top for this project - look at the categories at the bottom. Orderinchaos 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Electoral district categories

Is Category:Electoral districts of Gold Coast a good idea? We have Category:Electoral districts of Queensland and similar for each state, but is breaking them down any further really necessary? —Moondyne 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be what they call a "trivial intersection". And it is poorly named too: the "electoral districts of Gold Coast" would be districts that elect members to the Parliament of Gold Coast; this is rather "electoral districts of Queensland located in Gold Coast", an entirely different kettle of fish. Hesperian 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Zap. —Moondyne 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Court

Charles Court died overnight.[6] There is likely to be a series of obituaries etc. which may be useful in expanding the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd timing, right as I'm beginning the 1977 state election article and finishing up the one on his opposite number. RIP, I guess. Orderinchaos 23:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And here's the first one already. Lots of detail in it, I guess it was sitting on the shelf waiting for the day. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

True - he's been in poor health for some time. This one wasn't terribly detailed - I have all the Political Chronicles and a couple of books on the 1977 election, also have his page from the Biographical Register. Not sure if I'll find the time but if anyone wants a scan of the Biographical Register pages drop me an email. Orderinchaos 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They split the obit from the article after I linked to it. It is better than our article however. Where we need to be eventually is in a situation where newspaper obit writers get their information from Wikipedia rather than the reverse! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been poring through Xenophon stats all morning... got some way with them, but of course nothing that can really be added here (found that he did best in Liberal and Democrat urban areas and worst in One Nation and Labor areas) Orderinchaos 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Elections template

Can someone please change the elections template back to the way it was about a month ago? The excessive footnoting is awful and makes things very hard to read and difficult to navigate. Get rid of the multiple Australian flags if that is the problem, but not the different categories. JRG (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to work on it but I'm not actually understanding what you see the issue as being. The template was actually bigger a month ago. Orderinchaos 07:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the flag but that might be disputed. There is quite a debate on the template talk page and the footnotes were added to avoid a more complicated template as OiC rightly says it was a month ago. --Bduke (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the footnoting is excessive - it is certainly better than having four seperate rows for the elections. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am happy with the footnotes. The flags however are another matter. As a say on the template talk page, they appear to be in breach of the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Help the reader rather than decorate. I suggest they be removed. --Bduke (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the flags - but I can't honestly see any reason or argument for keeping them over not keeping them. Orderinchaos 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem is with the footnotes, not the flags. They are unreadable on my computer. I think it would be better to revert to the four categories of house-only, senate only, double diss. and house and half senate as at least you can see clearly what years were where. JRG (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Julian Doyle

Hi all. This article has been listed for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Doyle. I daresay it will be kept as it meets WP:BIO but if someone with a bit of knowledge in the area was to tidy it a little it might help its chances. Alternatively, if you feel it should be deleted, feel free to have your say there as well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating John Hyde (Australian politician)

One was a federal liberal MHR for Moore (WA), from '74 to '83. The other is a serving state labor MLA for Perth. See Special:Whatlinkshere/John Hyde (Australian politician). What is the best way of disambiguating between these two? —Moondyne 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that having the former federal MHR as John Hyde (Australian federal politician) and the other as John Hyde (Western Australian politician) could be alright, but then again so could John Hyde (Australian Liberal politician) and John Hyde (Australian Labor politician). I'd go for the federal/WA version. Frickeg (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As one is federal and one is state I tend to agree with Frickeg's first version. Orderinchaos 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The listing by party could create a confusing precedent and is dependent on searchers knowing what party the MP represented, which for minor historical figures may not be likely. disambiguating by level of government makes more sense to me. Euryalus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The other option is just to disambiguate by full name - that's what we've done in a few of these cases. Rebecca (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam GA Nomination

Hi there, I've nominated Gough Whitlam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a Good Article. If you think you can help with the review, please do so! haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob Howard

Bob Howard is listed as a 'missing article' on our main page, but I'm not sure if he's notable enough under WP:PROF to have his own article. I've put together a draft stub here, but I'd like to get more evidence of notability before putting it in the encyclopedia proper. Can anyone help out? --Nasica (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I concur that at present the stub fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. I had a bit of a search and couldn't find publications - I searched among other places the National Library catalogue and could find nothing that seemed to match Bob Howard or Robert Howard. The Sydney uni site for staff doesn't seem helpful as in it does not list publications by staff members. --Matilda ^talk 05:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've found some articles by him on Informit/APA-FT, but nothing that marks him out as more significant than a normal academic. I think that the only thing that distinguishes him is his (strained) relationship with his brother, but I don't think that alone qualifies him for an article. I'll leave the stub up on my userspace in case anyone disagrees, but I don't think he's notable overall. --Nasica (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think Presumption in favor of privacy applies - ie don't have an article - its a great stub otherwise :-) --Matilda ^talk 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Point that speculation begins?

In writing the Charles Barnes article, I noted that a 1964 book states that the retirement of the then Country Party leader John McEwen was imminent and the Barnes was the most likely to succeed him as leader and ergo Deputy PM. As it turns out, McEwen stayed on until 1971, including a stint as PM. Is it going beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia to say if McEwen had retired as expected, and Barnes become CP leader as expected, then it is likely that Barnes would have become PM upon Holt's disappearance? --Roisterer (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit of stretch - probably best to say he was was the most likely to succeed John McEwen as leader and leave it at that. --haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit of a stretch. Barnes may have been most likely to succeed McEwen in 1964 but anything could have happened by 1967 - he could have retired, been deposed, been hit by a meteor and so on. It's too close to a synthesis - he "coulda bin a contendah" and if he was, he could have been the champ when the previous champ ws kidnapped by a Chinese submarine. But he could also not have been. Euryalus (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)